06-21-2017, 03:20 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-21-2017, 03:51 PM by Bring4th_Austin.)
The question, as you are essentially asking it, is whether or not the new alignment is based off the new axis realignment or if there is more of a circle, or ring, from which the new energies emanate. These drawings are 2D and inaccurate in a few ways, but they're just to illustrate a point.. The angles are not exact and are only representations.
Here you have a simple representation of Louisville, somewhere in the northern hemisphere, and the "0 degrees" north in black, the "20 degrees east of north" in green. You see that measuring 20 degrees east of north. Relative to Louisville, it passes the original 0 degrees axis to the east. If the axis shifted, and those energies come from the new axis, that axis would have to be somewhere that this green line would meet. This would not be the case at another location, such as:
So let's introduce a hypothetical new axis that is shifted 20 degrees to meet Louisville's green line.
The axis is a single point, and for Othersideville to face that point, they would need to face 20 degrees west of north. If they faced 20 degree east of north, they would not be aligned with the new axis.
So that makes the question: do the new energies come from the location of the new axis? If not, then is it just a coincidence that the new axis is the same matter of degrees as the new energies? And then also, what exactly is significant about that 20 degrees east of north? For Louisville, it might point to the new axis. But for Othersideville, the new axis is 20 degrees west of north, so their energies are then emanating 40 degrees east of the new axis.
To me, the simplest explanation is that the location of the new energies are relative to Louisville. Since Ra didn't specify, it is up for interpretation, but it makes the most sense to me and introduces fewer questions.
Edit: Thinking about it some more, the statement that the axes will realign 20 degrees makes almost no sense in context of this discussion. If the statement was that the northern axis will realign 20 degrees, that would make more sense. But if the norther axis realigned 20 degrees (in either east or west from Louisville) then the southern axis would realign but a much smaller degree amount (from south relative to Louisville). You'd have to measure from the equator for both angles to be the same in a realignment. Wherever the norther axis realigns to, the southern axis would naturally need to be complete opposite of that on the globe. Traveling down in latitude, from Louisville southward, would cause the degrees east of north (assuming the stationary blue point axis) to decrease and the degrees west of south (assuming a stationary axis opposite of the blue point) to increase. They'd be equal only at the equator.
So there is really some confusing and insufficient information in that statement. But the 20 degrees east of north logic would still stand regarding whether it is relative.
Here you have a simple representation of Louisville, somewhere in the northern hemisphere, and the "0 degrees" north in black, the "20 degrees east of north" in green. You see that measuring 20 degrees east of north. Relative to Louisville, it passes the original 0 degrees axis to the east. If the axis shifted, and those energies come from the new axis, that axis would have to be somewhere that this green line would meet. This would not be the case at another location, such as:
In Othersideville, which is a city at the same latitude (still in the northern hemisphere) but with opposite longitude (so that their 0 degrees north is the same line).
In the case of Othersideville, were a person there measuring 20 degrees east of north, it points to a completely different location - one that would not meet the new axis if the new axis met Louisville's green line.
So let's introduce a hypothetical new axis that is shifted 20 degrees to meet Louisville's green line.
The axis is a single point, and for Othersideville to face that point, they would need to face 20 degrees west of north. If they faced 20 degree east of north, they would not be aligned with the new axis.
So that makes the question: do the new energies come from the location of the new axis? If not, then is it just a coincidence that the new axis is the same matter of degrees as the new energies? And then also, what exactly is significant about that 20 degrees east of north? For Louisville, it might point to the new axis. But for Othersideville, the new axis is 20 degrees west of north, so their energies are then emanating 40 degrees east of the new axis.
To me, the simplest explanation is that the location of the new energies are relative to Louisville. Since Ra didn't specify, it is up for interpretation, but it makes the most sense to me and introduces fewer questions.
Edit: Thinking about it some more, the statement that the axes will realign 20 degrees makes almost no sense in context of this discussion. If the statement was that the northern axis will realign 20 degrees, that would make more sense. But if the norther axis realigned 20 degrees (in either east or west from Louisville) then the southern axis would realign but a much smaller degree amount (from south relative to Louisville). You'd have to measure from the equator for both angles to be the same in a realignment. Wherever the norther axis realigns to, the southern axis would naturally need to be complete opposite of that on the globe. Traveling down in latitude, from Louisville southward, would cause the degrees east of north (assuming the stationary blue point axis) to decrease and the degrees west of south (assuming a stationary axis opposite of the blue point) to increase. They'd be equal only at the equator.
So there is really some confusing and insufficient information in that statement. But the 20 degrees east of north logic would still stand regarding whether it is relative.
_____________________________
The only frontier that has ever existed is the self.
The only frontier that has ever existed is the self.